Why does everyone hate this movie merged with worst change

[moonspinner]

Actually Peter made his fair share of mistakes in the book which is why he told Aslan upfront that he had been leading them wrong. That was resolved so that when he met up with Caspian et al, he was inspired to do the right thing. In fact all the kids, except possibly Lucy didn't handle themselves too well. The seeds of Susan's turn were compressed into a thirty second scene with Lucy. Even Edmund the Perfect - funny how nobody points out that the movie made him a Too Good To Be True character - was the one who made the wrong call about going by Glasswater.

If you hate the characters that CS Lewis wrote and want to call them Mary Sues, that's your choice but there's nothing in the books that supports that theory. And judging by how abysmally the second movie fared in comparison to the first, it looks like most did not find Peter's 'reinvention' convincing or necessary.

 

[inkspot]

I think everyone is making truthful points here, but I still can't imagine Peter returning to Narnia and having NO REACTION to what had been going on. As Truman pointed out, portraying Peter's character as it was in the book would've made him look like a Mary Sue (or Gary Stu, in his case ). I'm not saying that Lewis did anything wrong by giving Peter minimal flaws, but translate his character into movie form and you'll have an atrocious 21st century film. Movies today need character development in order to keep fans interested. Unfortunately, the writers' decisions are not always embraced by us diehard fans.

Apparently their decisions weren't embraced by much of anyone -- the movie fared so badly Disney rejected the whole franchise, and it came nowhere close to the success of LWW in which the children behaved a bit more like their characters in the book.

Peter wasn't perfect in the book, and his imperfections could certainly have been brought into the movie without making him into a perfect ass like they did in the movie!

 

[Copperfox]

That's right, Inkspot, Peter was NOT shown as a flawless "Mary Sue" in the book. It would be the FALSE argument of Andrew Adamson that it supposedly was necessary to make Peter a total dweeb to avoid Mary Sue-ism. But you DON'T have to be a useless loser to avoid being impossibly perfect. Adamson really was doing something else: a cynical pandering to the teen-idol mentality. Since Caspian was due to be present in another movie while Peter was bowing out, Adamson used the degraded image of Peter as a device to make Caspian look superior and build up his glamour for the teenyboppers.

 

[Truman]

Since Caspian was due to be present in another movie while Peter was bowing out, Adamson used the degraded image of Peter as a device to make Caspian look superior and build up his glamour for the teenyboppers.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

 

[Lila]

*shrugs* I loved the movie. I'm a diehard Narnia fan and I thought the film was great. *backs out of discussion*

 

[MrBob]

"But you're forgetting that Peter isn't a historical figure, and is just as subject to interpretation as Oliver Twist. You're over the line with Washington "hiding from a thunderstorm." Calling that a comparison to Peter's teenage angst (which is prominent in most teens, even without the ripping away of kingly power) is a far cry from accurate."

Just as it is possible to betray an historical figure, it is equally possible to betray a fictional character. An example I have used before is what if Chris Columbus had created "Sorcerer's Stone" with Harry in Slytherin and befriending Draco? Why couldn't Peter Jackson made Gandalf a follower or Sauron? Heck, why not make a movie where Oliver Twist is a Prince of a wealthy nation?

Those are all interpretations of the source material even if they also are antithetical to their source characters.

That said, how many teens do you know who would get into fights at the drop of a hat? In schol, I didn't know that many and only knew of a few fights that actually happened and I don't see much has changed. The issue was the amount of angst that Peter had, and for a reason that was explained in the books should not have happened. Some teens do have angst, but most of the time, normal amounts. Again, where was Susan's angst? Why wasn't Edmund so upset? Why wasn't Lucy whiny about being a chid again?

The extent of Peter's issues and why he was the only one to suffer from them is not explained. You would think that a teen who had been dragged into a new strange land, ripped from his normal life, and forced to take a lead in a battle would have enough angst. You would think that this same teen who was now king would not rule wisely, instead trying to do too much or thinking he was invincable, especially since Aslan himself had crowned him. Why should he care about anyone else? Why not just take over all the lands? After all, he was a teen who feels has been personally crowned by G*d Himself and had already won one war.

Neitehr teenage angst nor expectations alone can explain Peter's behaviour completely.

MrBob

 

[moonspinner]

That's right, Inkspot, Peter was NOT shown as a flawless "Mary Sue" in the book. It would be the FALSE argument of Andrew Adamson that it supposedly was necessary to make Peter a total dweeb to avoid Mary Sue-ism. But you DON'T have to be a useless loser to avoid being impossibly perfect. Adamson really was doing something else: a cynical pandering to the teen-idol mentality. Since Caspian was due to be present in another movie while Peter was bowing out, Adamson used the degraded image of Peter as a device to make Caspian look superior and build up his glamour for the teenyboppers.

That actually makes a lot of sense to me. I'm rewatching the first movie now and it strikes me just how diminished the morality of all the children are.

"An example I have used before is what if Chris Columbus had created "Sorcerer's Stone" with Harry in Slytherin and befriending Draco? Why couldn't Peter Jackson made Gandalf a follower or Sauron? Heck, why not make a movie where Oliver Twist is a Prince of a wealthy nation?

Those are all interpretations of the source material even if they also are antithetical to their source characters.

Good point.

Again, where was Susan's angst? Why wasn't Edmund so upset? Why wasn't Lucy whiny about being a chid again?

It's really a big shame about Susan because this is the last time we'll see her until we hear that she has "fallen out of grace" with Narnia. Instead of a story about a girl struggling with faith, we get a story about a teenager's first crush - when we get a story about Susan at all.

 

[Truman]

Just as it is possible to betray an historical figure, it is equally possible to betray a fictional character. An example I have used before is what if Chris Columbus had created "Sorcerer's Stone" with Harry in Slytherin and befriending Draco? Why couldn't Peter Jackson made Gandalf a follower or Sauron? Heck, why not make a movie where Oliver Twist is a Prince of a wealthy nation?

Those are all interpretations of the source material even if they also are antithetical to their source characters.

True again, but you're extending this far beyond what it really is. Giving Peter a little humanity and character is certainly not the same as turning Oliver into a Prince.

That said, how many teens do you know who would get into fights at the drop of a hat?

Quite a few, in fact me, and that was just elementary. There are fights all the time in school. Peter fought with a classmate or other, something to that effect. A 1999 national survey of high school students showed that more than 1 in 3 students had been in at least one physical fight that year. They're more common than you think. Imagine if that poll was taken this year (maybe it has; I don't know).

The issue was the amount of angst that Peter had, and for a reason that was explained in the books should not have happened. Some teens do have angst, but most of the time, normal amounts. Again, where was Susan's angst? Why wasn't Edmund so upset? Why wasn't Lucy whiny about being a chid again?

I don't know all the answers. I do know that there are explanations to everything, even if it's guess-work. Susan was quite the "logical" one as explained in the first film, which would account of her taking the whole thing much better than the other three children. Edmund and Lucy were quite the little believers, so they were quite sure they'd return soon. Especially Lucy; she was always a child at heart. You must understand that Peter was endowed with the greatest responsibility of the four, and would thus have the most pressure.

The extent of Peter's issues and why he was the only one to suffer from them is not explained...

...Neitehr teenage angst nor expectations alone can explain Peter's behaviour completely.

Sure they can, if you think hard enough about it. You should read my two-comment-long post called "Rebuttals" on the "Mistakes in the Movie" thread.

EDIT:

Instead of a story about a girl struggling with faith, we get a story about a teenager's first crush - when we get a story about Susan at all.

That's actually a pretty god add-on when you consider Lewis' description of Susan maturing sexually in TLB (descriptions like "lipstick" and "nice clothes," etc.). Adding an early-on crush for Susanand Caspian in PC would only reinforce that idea if Walden Media comes out with all seven books.

 

[AsbelMctalisker]

I`m not sure that in fact they DID want to imply that there was something going on with Susan, just that she was handling it differently.
Consider the comments about her "sitting alone" and her remarks like "I prefere to be left Alone", "We have to accept that we live here" or once they get back to Narnia and her reply to Lucy asking her if she`s glad to be back, "While it lasts, I`d just got used to being back in England".

 

[moonspinner]

That's actually a pretty god add-on when you consider Lewis' description of Susan maturing sexually in TLB (descriptions like "lipstick" and "nice clothes," etc.). Adding an early-on crush for Susanand Caspian in PC would only reinforce that idea if Walden Media comes out with all seven books.

Speaking from a purely feminist point of view, I think it is horribly misogynistic that Caspian has a crush and goes on to do great deeds, have a happy marriage and generations of great Kings (right down to the last King of Narnia) while Susan has a crush that makes her lose her Faith! It's just another form of the sexist concept of: romance is just a part of a man's life while romance is a woman's whole life.

But that is irrelevant because the fact is you, like Phillip Pullman, have completely misunderstood that portion of the Last Battle. If maturing sexually was all it took for someone to fall out of Narnia, then - to state the obvious - the first King and Queen won't have been a married couple and Aravis's and Shasta's stories won't have ended with them getting married. The whole point of Susan's estrangement from Narnia, as Lady Polly said, was that Susan had become immature and not mature, sexual or otherwise. I have honestly never understood how people keep making this mistake.


Although this wasn't in reply to my comment, I have a few things to say:

True again, but you're extending this far beyond what it really is. Giving Peter a little humanity and character is certainly not the same as turning Oliver into a Prince.

And once again, you are defining humanity = being an ass. They are not the same thing. And by your definition, movie!Peter has more "humanity" than in the book, while movie!Edmund has no humanity at all because he is entirely perfect in all the things he does.

Susan was quite the "logical" one as explained in the first film, which would account of her taking the whole thing much better than the other three children. Edmund and Lucy were quite the little believers, so they were quite sure they'd return soon. Especially Lucy; she was always a child at heart. You must understand that Peter was endowed with the greatest responsibility of the four, and would thus have the most pressure.

But in the books, Susan did have angst, Edmund made mistakes and Lucy fell out with her siblings. Aslan even reprimanded Lucy for not following him the first time she saw him. In the movies, all these characters end up having less flaws than they do in the movies. As I said before, if you hate the characters and stories and think C. S. Lewis was writing about a bunch of Mary Sues, that's your choice, but none of his heroes were perfect - from Peter to Jill, all his characters learned and grew along with the story. I find it hard to believe that anyone can read the Narnia books and not see how each of the children end the story with a fundamental lesson about themselves and God.

 

[Truman]

Speaking from a purely feminist point of view, I think it is horribly misogynistic that Caspian has a crush and goes on to do great deeds, have a happy marriage and generations of great Kings (right down to the last King of Narnia) while Susan has a crush that makes her lose her Faith! It's just another form of the sexist concept of: romance is just a part of a man's life while romance is a woman's whole life.

What ever gave you the idea that Susan's minor crush on Caspian was so important that her faith in Narnia was lost because of it? I never said this. I said that her crush added to her maturity which took full swing in TLB, that's all. Nothing sexist about it. And by the way, I hate feminism.

But that is irrelevant because the fact is you, like Phillip Pullman, have completely misunderstood that portion of the Last Battle. If maturing sexually was all it took for someone to fall out of Narnia...

Wait wait, hold on, now you've got a strawman. I never said this was "all it took" to lose faith. I didn't say that. I said it added on to it. It reinforced it. It certainly did not cause anything.

...then - to state the obvious - the first King and Queen won't have been a married couple and Aravis's and Shasta's stories won't have ended with them getting married. The whole point of Susan's estrangement from Narnia, as Lady Polly said, was that Susan had become immature and not mature, sexual or otherwise. I have honestly never understood how people keep making this mistake.

Yes, the point of not being mature is present, but only to a certain view. Lewis, as well as others, could indeed say that such "maturity" in Susan is in fact immaturity because it implies that she would rather go with the world than with her old beliefs. Contrary to this, however, she left belief in a world called Narnia, not "Christianity" or some other "faith" which Lewis wishes to describe it being the same as. I understand that this is what Lewis was trying to say, but I disagree with him. Having the faith of a child like Mark 10:15 says still doesn't contradict 1 Corinthians 13:11:

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

That's where I disagree with Lewis, and where I think he went wrong. Not to say that Narnia was "childish" (since it was actually a real place), but that Susan was getting on with her life, while the others seemed to want to go back everyday, having no real care for our world as much as they did for Narnia.

And once again, you are defining humanity = being an ass. They are not the same thing. And by your definition, movie!Peter has more "humanity" than in the book, while movie!Edmund has no humanity at all because he is entirely perfect in all the things he does.

No, that's not what I think. "Being an ass" is a far cry from what Peter was in the movie. I can't understand why so many people here think he was. The scene between Peter and Caspian was a personal moment between the two which lasted for less than 30 seconds.

Afterward, in the cave with the hag and the wolf, they both made their peace with each other, both knowing that it wasn't either of their faults, or else both of their faults. One way or another, they acknowledged that they were in this together. I can't understand why no one noticed this in the film and why everyone's focusing on the bad, never the good.

As for Edmund being "perfect" (which he wasn't, by the way), Edmund was simply made a "lighter" character as compared with the old Edmund of LWW. You're also forgetting that Edmund wasn't in charge, Peter was. He wasn't high king. His decisions weren't the final ones. The mentality of themselves as kings and queens was once again presented to them when they entered Narnia for the second time, and that mentality dictated that Peter was in charge of all decisions to be made, not Edmund or Caspian. Caspian was a new guy; a nobody as far as royalty went. Edmund wasn't "perfect," he just had no tough decisions to make like he had in the first story.

But in the books, Susan did have angst, Edmund made mistakes and Lucy fell out with her siblings. Aslan even reprimanded Lucy for not following him the first time she saw him. In the movies, all these characters end up having less flaws than they do in the movies.

What exactly were these "blatant mistakes" that Edmund made in the book? What decisions did he have that Peter didn't? What choices did he make that would lower his favor in the reader's eye? I have no recollection of anything like this when reading. You're thinking of LWW.

You say, "Aslan even reprimanded Lucy for not following him the first time she saw him." Correct. He also did this in the film. "Susan's angst"? I'm seriously trying to remember anything that could be called "angst," and given to anyone, even Susan. Because I don't remember any "angst" that the kids had in the books. I recall them all acting pretty... storybook-like in the books, with no true emotional stances on anything, except Lucy's love for Aslan. That's about it. They didn't have less flaws or more, unnecessary flaws in the film than the book. Everything was just as it should've been, just as the actual world would have dictated it to be.

As I said before, if you hate the characters and stories and think C. S. Lewis was writing about a bunch of Mary Sues, that's your choice...

I never said he wrote "about a bunch of Mary Sues." I said he wrote a bunch of Mary Sues. And yes, I did hate the book. I thought it dragged egregiously, and that the children had no incorporated emotional feelings about anything except the fact that "Lucy loves Aslan" (which I mentioned already). And I read it before I saw the movie. I hoped dearly that they would change the movie from the book and my hope paid off.

...but none of his heroes were perfect - from Peter to Jill, all his characters learned and grew along with the story. I find it hard to believe that anyone can read the Narnia books and not see how each of the children end the story with a fundamental lesson about themselves and God.

Of course the bad characters grew emotionally, that's one of the major points of the Narnia books. The problem is that Lewis can't seem to write dynamic characters that already possess a good-natured heart. Lewis writes Peter, Lucy, and Susan, and then never gets any farther than Peter, Lucy, and Susan. The same ensues with Jill. Jill is a good-hearted girl, so what does Lewis do? Nothing. He keeps her that way, and never strays from her original character. She never openly sins, she never make any morally wrong choices. Neither do Peter or Lucy. Susan is the perhaps the only good-hearted person in the series that turns into someone who makes wrong choices. I give Lewis props for such a step. Lewis only changes the character's nature if that nature is a bad one. He changes Edmund; he changes Eustace. If the character already possesses a good heart, he leaves him/her as is.

Now, I'm not saying "Everyone should make bad choices! They should all be sinful, stupid, and unrefined." That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying he should have given the characters more depth than their good-nature, like what Adamson and the writers did with everyone else. The primary rule of storytelling dictates there must be a situation, a problem to add to it, and a solution/end-note to that problem. The end may be happy or tragic, but it must be an ending. And this rule not only applies to the story itself, but the characters' personalities, unless the character is meant to be unchanging, but that's another long lecture.

A "lesson at the end" as far as the book goes is clearly present. No question. Peter and Susan have grown out of Narnia (which proves my previous point about "putting away childish things"). Some wish to believe the "spiritual" message is presented in the center of the storyline, saying that Narnia has to "believe" once again in hope and in Aslan (God) and everything'll be fine. I don't find this a very clear teaching as the latter, but let's say it's true for the sake of argument.

Where were these messages not presented in the film? I saw the first as clearly as I did in the book; the second I saw later after reading a bit more on PC's "spiritual themes." The point I'm making is that the essence of the Prince Caspian book, as far as the lessons and characters go, was presented in a new and better light when shown in the movie. Sure, the romp was removed (thank the Lord), but the lessons and the storyline weren't. That's what really mattered, and that's where I think Adamson and co. got it right.

 

[MrBob]

"Giving Peter a little humanity and character is certainly not the same as turning Oliver into a Prince."

Truman, if what they gave to Peter was "humanity, I want none of it for myself. Was it "humanity" that caused him to get into fights? Was it "humanity" that caused him to forget all the lessons he learned as High King? As I said, if he could handle the transition from pauper to King, why would he not be able to handle the reverse?

I wouldn't have minded if they made him a little more argumentative than he was in the book such as a few of the arguments between him and Caspian, but to start him out on such a bad foot was what made me upset. He had no reason for expecting to go back to Narnia. The only person he knew had only been there once.

"Susan was quite the "logical" one as explained in the first film, which would account of her taking the whole thing much better than the other three children. Edmund and Lucy were quite the little believers, so they were quite sure they'd return soon. Especially Lucy; she was always a child at heart. You must understand that Peter was endowed with the greatest responsibility of the four, and would thus have the most pressure."

Susan would seem to be the one with the hardest transition no matter which way it went. Both times in Narnia, she was the one who took the longest to accept that she was there. I would imagine that she would have been the one to take the longest to accept that she was back in England after the LWW as well as taking longer to accept that she was not going back.

Edmund, after LWW, lost a lot. He lost the place where he had not only betrayed his family, but also learned the painful lessons and changed for the better. He lost the place where he was reborn.

Lucy lost Aslan. She had a few intimate moments with Aslan including not only watching as he died, but watching as he came back to life. She was Aslan's greatest disciple and actually lost the most when he left after their coronation, only to see him once more at Anvard. Her spirituality was dealt a blow by returning to England.

Peter lost the respect he had earned as High King, but the thing is that he had that respect by a lot of people at home. Why would he have thrown it away by regressing rather than acting as he wanted people to treat him?

Now regarding Susan's crush and its effect on her future, I don't see how it would make any difference except possibly making one wonder why she would abandon Narnia. The way she was in the book was how Peter was in the movie regarding Aslan. Peter was the one constantly expressing disbelief that Aslan was not helping in the movie while Susan helped Lucy find Aslan at the end.

"Where were these messages not presented in the film? I saw the first as clearly as I did in the book; the second I saw later after reading a bit more on PC's "spiritual themes." The point I'm making is that the essence of the Prince Caspian book, as far as the lessons and characters go, was presented in a new and better light when shown in the movie."

The messages were not in any way clear in the movie if the message was about growing out of Narnia. The two most mature visitors to Narnia were Edmund and Lucy. They understood the most about Narnia and what it means. Peter forgot all of his lessons he learned in his first visit to Narnia and had to relearn them. Susan forgot that she was not supposed to indulge in her own fantasies, but rather concentrate on getting Narnia ready for Caspian. And who grew out of Narnia? As I have said a few times, to me, at the end, it seemed like Aslan was kicking Peter out because of how he acted after his first time around, this time specifically telling him he's not coming back, so he should never expect to.

As for the Susan TLB issues, she was, as moonie specified, not chastised for growing up, but for being ridiculous and a bit immature while at the same time, abanodoning her spiritual life. If Aslan told Peter and Susan the same major points that he told Edmund and Lucy. they were supposed to discover Aslan in their own world. Susan was not doing that, but was too interested in her social life to even indulge in family time.

MrBob

 

[Truman]

I know people get really tired of my two-post long messages, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to separate this next reply into two. Sorry for the inconvenience!

Truman, if what they gave to Peter was "humanity, I want none of it for myself. Was it "humanity" that caused him to get into fights? Was it "humanity" that caused him to forget all the lessons he learned as High King? As I said, if he could handle the transition from pauper to King, why would he not be able to handle the reverse?

He was handling it. His transition was just more shook-up than the rest because of his responsibility over the rest.

The "lessons" he could have learned over the years he was in Narnia were irrelevant, because apparently, the children's maturity never developed while they were there. They acted just the same way they did before and after they entered the wardrobe in the first book and film, and the characters of the children carried through into Prince Caspian. This is what I mentioned before: Lewis, when writing a good-natured character, puts no dynamism in. If they are bad-natured then he changes them, like Edmund and Eustace. If they're "good" then he leaves them as is.

This is why it's important to note that any maturity gained in Narnia is lost once they exit. Sort of like Neverland. You always "forget." Not that you forget any experiences in Narnia, but apparently their child-like mindsets were never altered before and after their first adventure, even when it lasted for almost two decades. You'll notice this is not only presented in the film, but in the books as well. The Pevensie children have clearly undergone no change from LWW to PC as far as maturity goes, so you can't say that "Peter would've known better from the 'lessons' he learned."

Peter getting into fights is not surprising. I'd be as frustrated as him if I didn't have the same authority I had in another world. As I said before, fights are very common among high school kids, and I'm sure they were just as common in the 40s as they are now. Adamson's take is not necessarily a new idea.

I wouldn't have minded if they made him a little more argumentative than he was in the book such as a few of the arguments between him and Caspian, but to start him out on such a bad foot was what made me upset. He had no reason for expecting to go back to Narnia. The only person he knew had only been there once.

The "only person"? Who's that? I thought he knew three others who went there too.

Susan would seem to be the one with the hardest transition no matter which way it went. Both times in Narnia, she was the one who took the longest to accept that she was there. I would imagine that she would have been the one to take the longest to accept that she was back in England after the LWW as well as taking longer to accept that she was not going back.

I disagree. Susan wouldn't take much time at all to believe she was once again in England because she was raised in England longer than Narnia; Narnia was a new place. It's a little like the Imogen Heap song at the end of the LWW film "I Can't Take It In." It's a song that would describe all the children, not just Susan. Maybe it would reflect on Susan's outlook on Narnia the most, but she wasn't the only one who had a hard time accepting it to be real. The only one of the four who seemed to "take it in" the quickest and easiest was Lucy. That would explain her emmense love for Narnia more so than the others.

Edmund, after LWW, lost a lot. He lost the place where he had not only betrayed his family, but also learned the painful lessons and changed for the better. He lost the place where he was reborn.

True, but that still isn't enough to make him angry at everyone. I'll say it again: Peter was the high king; the one with the most responsibility; the one with the most power; the one who lost the most. You're exactly correct to say Edmund lost much after he left Narnia the first time, but that's still irrelevant to Peter, and Edmund wasn't under the same pressure.

Lucy lost Aslan. She had a few intimate moments with Aslan including not only watching as he died, but watching as he came back to life. She was Aslan's greatest disciple and actually lost the most when he left after their coronation, only to see him once more at Anvard. Her spirituality was dealt a blow by returning to England.

True again, but how is this relevant to Peter? In fact, how do we know Lucy saw Aslan any more than she saw him in the few times that we as readers were told about in the books? She had an intimacy with Aslan, true, but do we know Lucy saw Aslan again after the coronation? Perhaps that was the last time she ever saw Aslan, perhaps not.

The point is we don't know what really happened in the years they spent in Narnia after the war of the White Witch. Sure, we're given clues and short stories elsewhere in other books, but other than those short descriptions we're pretty much in the dark about the happenings of the "Golden Age." And her character was not under the pressure Peter was under. You can tell me all about what the others lost when they left Narnia, but you'll never give me the same kind of loss Peter had when he left. It's the most important of all four of the Pevensies, as well as the most wrenching.

***Continued in next post...***

 

[Truman]

***...Continued from previous post.***

Peter lost the respect he had earned as High King, but the thing is that he had that respect by a lot of people at home. Why would he have thrown it away by regressing rather than acting as he wanted people to treat him?

He was away from home, he hadn't seen his mother all this time, there was a war still going on, his father had died in a previous war, he lost kingly power that ruled supreme over all else except God Himself, his "maturity gained" (if any at all) was suddenly erased from his brain when he came back from Narnia, and he had no clue whether or not he'd ever return. I'd call that sad. Plus, who are these "people" who respected him at home? In fact, when had he gone home from the time of LWW to PC? He never went home, or at least we're never told about it. I wouldn't expect anything less from Peter.

Now regarding Susan's crush and its effect on her future, I don't see how it would make any difference except possibly making one wonder why she would abandon Narnia. The way she was in the book was how Peter was in the movie regarding Aslan. Peter was the one constantly expressing disbelief that Aslan was not helping in the movie while Susan helped Lucy find Aslan at the end.

She never "abandoned" Narnia as anyone could plainly see with the end of both the book and film. She chose to leave, and also accepted the fact that her role in Narnia was over. Though she had a short flirtation with Caspian, she understood she couldn't bust into his destiny in Narnia when she knew she wasn't staying for long. She wasn't totally head-over-heels for the guy anyway. It was a short flirtation that was sparked, fed for a bit, and promptly ended when she endorsed her sensible side. Nothing more.

The messages were not in any way clear in the movie if the message was about growing out of Narnia.

How's that? I thought it was perfectly clear.

The two most mature visitors to Narnia were Edmund and Lucy. They understood the most about Narnia and what it means. Peter forgot all of his lessons he learned in his first visit to Narnia and had to relearn them.

Again, what "lessons" were those? Having an angry moment is a gross discrepancy to "forgetting lessons." By that it seems you're implying that Peter became the perfect king who knew no wrong and ruled like a saint from what he "learned." No one is like that, and everyone blows off steam once in a while, even King Tirian from TLB. But by what I think you're saying, if you're a king in Narnia you'll have to immediately gain wisdom for all things around you. That's not human, and I'm positive that Peter did not lose the ability to get angry. You're thinking of Aslan, not Peter.

Susan forgot that she was not supposed to indulge in her own fantasies, but rather concentrate on getting Narnia ready for Caspian.

That's not true. On the contrary, Susan was very ready for conflict and prepared for anything. Adamson and co. even got her involved in the battles, though she was a stark difference from the book with such statements from Lewis like Susan "not being that fond of battles" (or some statement to that effect). Her preparations for battle and help in finding Aslan were her biggest priorities, while Caspian came at a distant second. The crush she had on him did not in any way clash with her responsibilities, and that's clearly spoken in the film.

And who grew out of Narnia? As I have said a few times, to me, at the end, it seemed like Aslan was kicking Peter out because of how he acted after his first time around, this time specifically telling him he's not coming back, so he should never expect to.

That's ridiculous. I didn't see that at all.

As for the Susan TLB issues, she was, as moonie specified, not chastised for growing up, but for being ridiculous and a bit immature while at the same time, abanodoning her spiritual life.

What spiritual life? Narnia wasn't a spiritual life for Susan, or for anyone. It was a world that apparently Jesus ran through a lion, to teach the children good principles of life. It wasn't spiritual... It may have been a pointer to Jesus in their world, which they should follow, but life in Narnia, as far as living went, was no different spiritually as living in England.

If Aslan told Peter and Susan the same major points that he told Edmund and Lucy. they were supposed to discover Aslan in their own world. Susan was not doing that, but was too interested in her social life to even indulge in family time.

True, but that's never specified in the books. I believe that's what Lewis intended, but this contradicts your outlook on "learning from Narnia." If Aslan was God, he would have known Susan would do what she did, right? If that's so, why would he say even in the book that Peter and Susan had learned all they could from their stays in Narnia? If Susan never matured spiritually, then wouldn't that mean Susan had not learned all she could from Narnia, if it was a "spiritual life" they were living there? This "failure" of Susan in TLB proves that Aslan was not referring to spiritual growth in Narnia, but rather to age and maturity of themselves as people, which is what I've been saying all along.

 

[moonspinner]

Dear Truman, you wrote such a conscientious response and I'm sorry I can't respond on a point to point basis, but if you read my comment, you'll realize why it's really just one point that we're discussing about.

That's where I disagree with Lewis, and where I think he went wrong. Not to say that Narnia was "childish" (since it was actually a real place), but that Susan was getting on with her life, while the others seemed to want to go back everyday, having no real care for our world as much as they did for Narnia.

This reminds me of a discussion I had with someone who said that he didn't find the Narnia books good stories because the children all died in the end. So I told him that in the Narnia books, death was only the beginning of a far better Life and real living was just the prelude. He said he didn't agree with that. And the discussion pretty much ended there. It's the same now: If you, as a reader, cannot meet Lewis halfway in the rules he sets up for his world, then he might as well be writing in Old Latin for all the appreciation you can get from the story because you are literally unable to understand the language. If you disagree with Lewis and think that Susan abandoning Aslan and Narnia was not an inherently bad thing, then we can't even have a discussion of whether the arc of movie!Susan was an appropriate set up for the circumstances we find her in the Last Battle.

As for Edmund being "perfect" (which he wasn't, by the way)

To make this point, you will have to list examples in the movie where Edmund made any kind of wrong move. And no, it's not, as you argued, a question of responsibility because Peter was already acting like an ass (or as you will put it, humane) when he was back in England as a schoolboy.

As for the blatant flaws in the books, specifically Edmund's mistakes and Susan's angst, I'm not going to list them out point by point because that will be fruitless. I would list them and you still would not see them as flaws and I will explain this right away:

Jill is a good-hearted girl, so what does Lewis do? Nothing. He keeps her that way, and never strays from her original character. She never openly sins, she never make any morally wrong choices.

Out of her arrogance, the very first time she gets into Narnia, Jill Pole nearly gets Eustace killed; and her actions jeopardize their entire mission from the first. But to you, she counts as someone who never makes morally wrong choices.

There is a fundamental difference between how you define flaws and immorality and how Lewis defines them, and it is that difference that is distorting your perception of his characters why you regard, say, Jill Pole, as Mary Sue-type.

So in summary: While I can now better understand where you are coming from, it's really pointless for me to continue with this discussion because, going back to my Old Latin analogy, there is no common language.

 

[BarbarianKing]

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Actually, that makes a lot of sense. When you get older you'll understand.

True again, but you're extending this far beyond what it really is. Giving Peter a little humanity and character is certainly not the same as turning Oliver into a Prince.

Must a person behave like jerk to qualify as human or as having humanity?

My posts aren't long as I am not trying to prove anything. You like the movie and the silly Peter and I didn't and most of the fans of the books didn't either. That's it. You'll have to see way beyond the mere words and the script to understand why I and many others didn't like it. And you are not ready to look beyond. Especially if you need extremely long posts to say what you want to say.

 

[Truman]

Actually, that makes a lot of sense. When you get older you'll understand.

Really? Copperfox has shown his emmense knowledge and wisdom of the film world. I'm sure he knows exactly what the filmmakers were thinking, what they specifically intended, and even met with them on occasion to discuss the script. Yes, Copperfox knows pretty much everything there is to know about what went on behind the scenes. He even knew what director Adamson and producers were thinking!

...And if you didn't know I was being sarcastic just then, maybe it'll become clearer to you when you become an adult.

Must a person behave like jerk to qualify as human or as having humanity?

No, you're considering Peter in the wrong sense. Why do you assume that "getting into a fight" makes him a jerk? One moment where he gets angry and "Woah! He's a real jerk!" We might as well consider Tirian a total a-hole because he was much worse than Peter when it came to getting angry. Peter was not a jerk! He got into a fight. So? Teens get into fights. Are they all jerks? Am I a jerk? I got into fights in school (that I didn't start, by the way). Am I a jerk? Peter didn't start the fight he was in at the beginning. Was he a jerk? Peter was under extreme trauma from what happened at the raid. He got angry. Was he a jerk?

The answer to every one of these is an emphatic NO.

...And the reason why my posts are long and yours are short is because you haven't much to say when it comes to defending your side. I do. So do many other people here, like PrinceOfTheWest. Is he an idiot? No, he's just got a lot on his mind. There's no crime in that.

To moonspinner: I guess we can agree to disagree, and I'm glad our discussion was polite and refined, unlike what some people try to turn it into...

 

[BarbarianKing]

I rest my case.

 

[MrBob]

"This is why it's important to note that any maturity gained in Narnia is lost once they exit. Sort of like Neverland. You always "forget." Not that you forget any experiences in Narnia, but apparently their child-like mindsets were never altered before and after their first adventure, even when it lasted for almost two decades. You'll notice this is not only presented in the film, but in the books as well. The Pevensie children have clearly undergone no change from LWW to PC as far as maturity goes, so you can't say that "Peter would've known better from the 'lessons' he learned.' "

So, Truman, they can forget maturity but not experiences? That is impossible. Who you are is shaped by your experiences. They shape what you think and how you act. Either they remembered everything they did in Narnia and were affected by it in their maturity and actions or they didn't remember it, and thus, were unaffected. For me, I think that their memories were more or les forgotten, or put into the back receses of their minds, but they still retained a bit of the maturity that they gained. The more they stayed in England, the more their maturity would ease as their memories were gone.

The more they talked about it, the more they would remember and be able to remember the lessons. So either Peter remembered everything as one or he didn't. That still does not explain his fighting. This wasn't the first fight he was in either. Apparently, his knack for getting into fights was problematic as Susan asked him (paraphrasing) "What was the reason this time?" She was exasperated that he had a short fuse. And the reason Peter gave? They didn't apologize for bumping into him.

"In fact, how do we know Lucy saw Aslan any more than she saw him in the few times that we as readers were told about in the books? She had an intimacy with Aslan, true, but do we know Lucy saw Aslan again after the coronation? Perhaps that was the last time she ever saw Aslan, perhaps not."

Truman, Lucy saw Aslan after the Battle at Anvard when she was in the conference (?) room with Edmund, King Lune, Princes Cor and Corin, as wel as Rabadash. In LWW, I would say that Susan and Lucy both were the ones who saw Aslan the most, but it was Lucy who was most affected by him. It is why I like to refer to her as his disciple. Other than those times, I doubt she did see him, although I like to think Lucy was the spiritual leader of Narnia.

"He was away from home, he hadn't seen his mother all this time, there was a war still going on, his father had died in a previous war, he lost kingly power that ruled supreme over all else except God Himself, his "maturity gained" (if any at all) was suddenly erased from his brain when he came back from Narnia, and he had no clue whether or not he'd ever return. I'd call that sad."

There you go assuming, Truman. We don't know that he hadn't seen his mother in the ensuing year. She could have been able to visit her children if she had the money and time. As for his father, he was still very much alive. He is the reason why Susan went to the US. His Narnia experiences were irrelevant if he didnt remember them.

"By that it seems you're implying that Peter became the perfect king who knew no wrong and ruled like a saint from what he "learned." No one is like that"

Truman, the lesson is to pick your battles. And Peter would have definitely learned that kind of lesson. This is why not only the beginning was so bad, but also the castle raid. Neither was a good example of picking the right battle or even what to do when you are in the middle of one.

"If Aslan was God, he would have known Susan would do what she did, right? If that's so, why would he say even in the book that Peter and Susan had learned all they could from their stays in Narnia? If Susan never matured spiritually, then wouldn't that mean Susan had not learned all she could from Narnia, if it was a "spiritual life" they were living there?"

But Truman, Aslan in MN knew that he was going to have to sacrifice himself to get rid of Jadis. In TSC, he gives Jill four tasks, one of which is something that he forsees someone doing, the first person to give them a command in Aslan's name. Aslan, on numerous instances, tells Lucy that she can never knoiw what would have been if things were differently. He does know the future. He would know about Susan as well.

Of course, that does give us the ultimate question of why G*d would allow things to happen that he knows will happen. Why save Jon from a cancer if he is, ten years later, going to get into a car accident after drinking and kill a young child (just a hypothetical)?

The thing is that Susan did grow spiritually. Her problem was that she just abandoned it, abandoned the very idea that she had ever met a figure who told her to find him in her world. If, as a Christian, you went some place where you encoutered a deity and it told you its name in your world, would you then just pretend like that event never happened?

If it was just maturity and age, then why were Lucy and Edmund not allowed back before they reached the age of their older siblings? Why were Frank and Helen allowed to stay?

MrBob

 

[Truman]

Sorry, this'll be long again.

So, Truman, they can forget maturity but not experiences? That is impossible. Who you are is shaped by your experiences. They shape what you think and how you act. Either they remembered everything they did in Narnia and were affected by it in their maturity and actions or they didn't remember it, and thus, were unaffected. For me, I think that their memories were more or les forgotten, or put into the back receses of their minds, but they still retained a bit of the maturity that they gained. The more they stayed in England, the more their maturity would ease as their memories were gone.

Fine, you can believe that. Personally I don't believe this, because in the book (Prince Caspian) they remember certain events and relay back to them when looking over their old possessions in their chests when they get into the secret passage. Lucy and Edmund are also referenced in VDT (at the beginning) that they pretend like they're "once again in Narnia," having old adventures, which Lewis explains that Eustace thinks is childish and moronic.

I agree it's strange to think that experiences and maturity are separate, but in the mind of C. S. Lewis it supposedly is, because their child-like mindsets are still present while the memories they experienced in Narnia also exist.

Either way, whether or not they remembered anything is beside the point. The point is that the maturity "gained" in Narnia was apparently lost when they exited. You can't deny this, as they still act like children in PC.

The more they talked about it, the more they would remember and be able to remember the lessons. So either Peter remembered everything as one or he didn't. That still does not explain his fighting. This wasn't the first fight he was in either. Apparently, his knack for getting into fights was problematic as Susan asked him (paraphrasing) "What was the reason this time?" She was exasperated that he had a short fuse. And the reason Peter gave? They didn't apologize for bumping into him.

Ironically, it was for the other student for being an ass:

"After he bumped me, he tried to make me apologize."

How dare such a person defy the high kin-- wait, he's not king anymore, is he? See, that's my point. If you had been paying attention you would've noticed that Peter, theoretically, never started that fight. Sure he hit him, but think about the low-belt insult issued by the other. Not too much to ask for, is it?

As for Susan's aggravation, who's to say it was for "Peter's short temper"? Who said he had a short temper? All her cheeky comment indicated was that Peter got into fights before. That's all. Nowhere does it mean that Peter was a rabble-rouser. In fact, it's interesting to note that all four children immediately engage in a discussion after Peter's brawl about how they "are kids" and how long Aslan expected them to wait. The scene is a way of telling the audience: things weren't always this way. Peter was just a frustrated victim of loss. Try looking at it from his view.

Truman, Lucy saw Aslan after the Battle at Anvard when she was in the conference (?) room with Edmund, King Lune, Princes Cor and Corin, as wel as Rabadash. In LWW, I would say that Susan and Lucy both were the ones who saw Aslan the most, but it was Lucy who was most affected by him. It is why I like to refer to her as his disciple. Other than those times, I doubt she did see him, although I like to think Lucy was the spiritual leader of Narnia.

That's fine, I never really remembered too much from HHB (that's where it's from, right?). But what does this have to do with Peter? By what information I've read from you, it seems this is what you're implying when you mention Lucy,

"By your logic, Lucy should be acting very angsty as well as Peter, yet she isn't found having any problems in the film."

Lucy is a little girl. What is she going to do? What power does she have, exactly, when it comes to making decisions in the family? Not much. So please stop putting the other children in Peter's situation. You're trying to justify your point by saying the other children lost just as much, but this just isn't true when you consider the emmense authority, ascendancy, and obligation he had compared to the rest. I really don't think you fully understand the position Peter lost when he left Narnia, and what kind of trauma could ensue afterward of just becoming an ordinary kid with no importance.

There you go assuming, Truman. We don't know that he hadn't seen his mother in the ensuing year. She could have been able to visit her children if she had the money and time.

See, had you read the rest of the paragraph you would've known that I said,

"He never went home, or at least we're never told about it."

I left room for speculation; I never assumed anything.

As for his father, he was still very much alive. He is the reason why Susan went to the US.

I apologize; that's true, I was wrong.

Truman, the lesson is to pick your battles. And Peter would have definitely learned that kind of lesson. This is why not only the beginning was so bad, but also the castle raid. Neither was a good example of picking the right battle or even what to do when you are in the middle of one.

And yet, everyone else was supposed to act like they did before? I stand by my guns: their maturity was never retained. They remained children with child minds who acted just as they did before they ever entered the wardrobe. The fight at the beginning was not entirely Peter's fault, and the castle raid wasn't a half-bad idea either. Had Caspian stuck to the plan it might've been a victory; you can't deny that. The raid is a perfect example of an intelligent military tactic gone wrong from lack of obedience to orders.

But Truman, Aslan in MN knew that he was going to have to sacrifice himself to get rid of Jadis. In TSC, he gives Jill four tasks, one of which is something that he forsees someone doing, the first person to give them a command in Aslan's name. Aslan, on numerous instances, tells Lucy that she can never knoiw what would have been if things were differently. He does know the future. He would know about Susan as well.

Exactly! You just confirmed my point of Aslan knowing the future...

Of course, that does give us the ultimate question of why G*d would allow things to happen that he knows will happen. Why save Jon from a cancer if he is, ten years later, going to get into a car accident after drinking and kill a young child (just a hypothetical)?

The thing is that Susan did grow spiritually. Her problem was that she just abandoned it, abandoned the very idea that she had ever met a figure who told her to find him in her world. If, as a Christian, you went some place where you encoutered a deity and it told you its name in your world, would you then just pretend like that event never happened?

See, that doesn't add up. Why should Susan abandon her belief in Narnia while no one else did? That's the real question, but I think I know what really happened: maturity. The point Lewis was making was that Susan did grow and mature, only it was worldly maturity, not spritual. He then implied that worldy maturity was in fact immature by that definition. Had Aslan meant spiritual maturity he would've been wrong to say she learned all she could from Narnia, because she apparently didn't.

Sure, you could say she abandoned her belief, but that still doesn't make sense to say that Susan was the only person out of everyone else who entered Narnia to abandon her faith. It's more logical to believe that Susan in fact never grew spiritually, and that Aslan was referring to maturity gained from lessons of life and wisdom, which was the purpose of their visits. That's what everyone else got; that's what Peter and Susan gained when leaving.

My theory is that everyone else grew spiritually on their own, without the help of Aslan, and Susan never got the memo. Aslan may have hinted to finding Him in their world at the end of VDT, but that does not mean they spiritually matured in Narnia. It was just a request given to the children. Jesus is the door, but it takes the person to open it. Narnia prepared the children for life, and Aslan was the door. It took the children to go the rest of the mile, but Susan didn't go that extra mile, and was thus ostracized.

If it was just maturity and age, then why were Lucy and Edmund not allowed back before they reached the age of their older siblings? Why were Frank and Helen allowed to stay?

Well that's simple. Lucy and Edmund came back at the age of when Peter and Susan left, which is expressly why Aslan told Lucy and Edmund they were too old for Narnia at the end of VDT. This also proves my point on physical maturity when Aslan said in VDT (quote):

"'You are too old, children,' said Aslan, 'and you must begin to come close to your own world now.'"

Frank and Helen stayed because they were king and queen. Notice how Aslan also let the Pevensies stay in Narnia for almost two decades. They were much older than they were when they came. The point is that if you stay in Narnia, you'll die in Narnia. Frank and Helen made no attempt to leave, and thus stayed until the end of their lives. Had the Pevensies stayed they would have died as well. Since they did leave, their experiences went with them while their ages did not, and they had therefore "learned all they could" from Narnia as far as life lessons went. You addressed the "dying" issue yourself in the "Two Questions" thread.